The examples I saw should be able to be done with a Speed. What I saw was a very short depth of field on shots looking down. to accomplish this on the Speed, open the lens up all the way (4.7 on that 135), tilt the camera down to frame the shot and then use back tilt on the front standard. The open arperture will offer the narrowest depth of field. By pointing the camera down and using back tilt, you will have a very short and vertical depth of field. That will fuzz out anything behind or in front of your subject as in the examples. You'll also get some of that distorion in the vertical lines.

I've never tried this but it does offer an interesting look..._________________----------------------------------------
"Ya just can't have too many GVIIs"
----------------------------------------

Here's a terrible scan of a Polaroid that I shot with my Crown from my office.

The details are fuzzy, but I generally recall that I shot 1/100@f/8. I had the lens board tilted all the way back, and although it doesn't make much sense to me, I'd swear I was holding the camera upside down.

I got the idea from seeing David Burnett's work with a Speed Graphic for National Geographic.

A bit on the other side of the spectrum, but has anybody seen the work of Charles Matton?

He makes small scale models - often of rooms, and then photographs them. The photographs are generally displayed next to the models, and the photos look more 'real' than the subjects do. If you ever get the chance to see an exhibit of his work, I would highly recommend it.

Back to the subject, the primary thing that makes a photo of a model look not real is the lack of depth of field, which you can get selectively through movements with a LF camera - added to the fact that you are going to start out with a lot less DOF with LF than you had with 35mm.....

...the primary thing that makes a photo of a model look not real is the lack of depth of field....

Yep, that and viewpoint. How often do you see a photo of, say, a model railroad scene, taken from a scale 10- or 12-foot (or greater) height, when the idea is to create the illusion that the picture was taken by a "real" 6-ft.-tall person?

And another factor is detail: models are rarely in perfect proportion to the prototype. Small details such as door handles, trim strips, grab irons, etc., are usually overscale, and are dead giveaways.

Well a cine lens, even one designed for 35mm, won't cover 4x5, but EASmithV is on the right track.

Before grabbing for your wallet and watching ebay for a 2.9 pentac or other over aptertured lens, try using what you have. Granted Optars, Raptars and Ektars aren't going to be their sharpest wide open, but see if it's good enough.

To add to the shallow dept of field, use the tilt on the front standard. Try just tilting up to start and check the ground glass. you can get an effect down tilt by dropping the bed and raising the front standard back to normal, but not tilting it.

Both of these movements will effectively throw out the near / far areas and leave a shallow depth of field. This might allow you to shoot at a sharper f-stop of say f8 or f11 and still get the same results.

Depending on the cloud cover and the position of the sun, tilting up may give you more flare than tilting down._________________"In order to invent, you need a good imagination and a lot of junk" Thomas Edison